Ortiz et al v. Noem et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Rene Ortiz, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Kristi Noem, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-26-00084-PHX-JZB
ORDER
This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle. (Doc. 3). On March 9,
2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) with this Court.1
(Doc. 13). The Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court deny Plaintiffs’ Application
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2), dismiss Plaintiffs’ Mandamus and APA claims
with prejudice, and dismiss Plaintiffs’ FOIA claim with leave to amend. (Doc. 13). On
1 This case is assigned to a Magistrate Judge. However, not all parties have consented
to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. Thus, the matter is before this Court pursuant
to General Order 21-25, which states in relevant part:
When a United States Magistrate Judge to whom a civil action has been
assigned pursuant to Local Rule 3.7(a)(1) considers dismissal to be
appropriate but lacks the jurisdiction to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1)
due to incomplete status of election by the parties to consent or not consent
to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge,
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge will prepare a Report and
Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court
Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on
my behalf:
Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M. McNamee
Case 2:26-cv-00084-SMM-JZB Document 17 Filed 04/21/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
March 17, 2026, Plaintiffs filed Objections (Doc. 14) to the R&R, the First Amended
Complaint (“FAC”) (Doc. 15), and the second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(Doc 16). Due to Plaintiffs’ FAC, the Magistrate Judge’s R&R is now moot.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v.
Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the service
of a copy of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific written
objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to object to a
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of
the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all objections to those findings on
appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a
Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of
finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id.
DISCUSSION
The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ Application to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis, dismiss Plaintiffs’ Mandamus and APA claims with prejudice,
and dismiss Plaintiffs’ FOIA claim with leave to amend. (Doc. 13 at 3-8). After the
Magistrate Judge filed the R&R, on March 17, 2026, Plaintiffs filed the First Amendment
Complaint (“FAC”) (Doc. 15) and a second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(Doc 16).
A plaintiff has “the right to amend his complaint” without leave from the Court any
time before a “responsive pleading [is] filed or within twenty days after service of the
pleading if no response was permitted and the case [is] not on the trial calendar.” Ramirez
v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1007-08 (9th Cir. 2015); see also Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(a)(1). A first amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, and the Court
treats the original as nonexistent. Id.; see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th
Cir. 1992).
Case 2:26-cv-00084-SMM-JZB Document 17 Filed 04/21/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and
noting that Plaintiffs’ FAC was filed as a matter of course, the Court hereby declines
to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R&R because it is now moot. Additionally, the Court
finds that Plaintiffs Maria Del Socorro Ortiz and Maria Dolores Ochoa Castro
should be dismissed from this action.
Plaintiffs Rene Ortiz, Maria Del Socorro Ortiz, and Maria Dolores Ochoa Castro
initiated this action, yet the record reflects that only Plaintiff Rene Ortiz has signed the
pleadings. (See Docs. 1; 2; 15; 16). When an unrepresented party files a motion or other
document on behalf of another unrepresented litigant, each unrepresented litigant must sign
each document. See Fed. P. Civ. P. 11(a). This requirement exists because generally an
unrepresented litigant cannot litigate on behalf of others, as “the privilege to represent
oneself” is personal “and does not extend to other parties or entities.” Simon v. Hartford
Life & Accident Ins. Co., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); see also 28
U.S.C. § 1654. The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiffs Maria Del Socorro Ortiz and Maria
Dolores Ochoa Castro from this action.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth,
IT IS ORDERED finding that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge is moot. (Doc. 13).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiffs Maria Del Socorro Ortiz and
Maria Dolores Ochoa Castro without prejudice. (Doc. 15).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate Plaintiffs
Maria Del Socorro Ortiz and Maria Dolores Ochoa Castro in this matter.
Dated this 21st day of April, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-00084-SMM-JZB Document 17 Filed 04/21/26 Page 3 of 3